(15-06-2016 08:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No, you can't. You have to redefine what is "good" and "evil" so that what means "good" for god and what means "good" for any other conscious entity are different.

No, I don't.

I just have to a different subjective concept of what Good means, than you.

Which if you're a liberal minded humanist, we likely do.

Like I said, you redefine what "good" means so that the evil shit your god does is still "good." And you STILL don't see the logical contradiction in redefining a word/concept to preserve the "goodness" of your god.

At least this is the first step towards admitting the immoral nature of your god since it requires redefining "good" in order to align your god's actions with moral decisions. (ergo, even you have to be using subjective and not objective morality. But I am sure this point also goes over your head)

(14-06-2016 05:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote: The point is simple this is hypocritical. Bob tells George don't do x, Bob tells George do x, then Bob tells George don't do x. In the middle George did x though when told too... it doesn't matter if it's absolute or not in statement. Bob still told George to not do x. So you think theses are not contradictions of Bob? Circumstances can be contradiction causes yes. There's no need moralizing, it's about a logical pattern of direction.

The variety of problems with this. A rule applied to George does not necessary apply to Bob. As stated on my example of parents imposing a curfew on their children, while not having to abide by that curfew themselves. This is not hypocritical or contradictory.

And secondly, ignoring what was said previously, when asking for examples, people point to commandment like though shall not kill. And then assume that commandment about stoning adulterers, capital punishment, taking someone's life in self defense, often found in the same chapter as the previous rule, indicate a contradiction. No it doesn't, the rule has never been composed or understand as an absolute dictate, clearly not by the communities in which such writing were addressed too. Just like when I teach my children that lying is wrong, I'm not telling them that if it was for the sake of saving someone life, that they shouldn't lie.

Either the command means though not kill under no circumstances whatsoever, or it means that shall not unjustly kill others.

You seem to be ignoring all this.

How do you not follow a point so simple... This comprehension consistency is scary. It's not a "bob" or God

Plus, the actual example bit is of moses/joshua killing, pilaging, stealing from, etc. the Levites and Canaanites. The PEOPLE... how do you leap to the parents not doing what they tell you to do, when that's not at a time the point at all. The human actors following the command is the distinct action.

How did that combine into your understanding of the scenario? Where did you drum up that from these directed statements at any point? You show no honesty to ever demonstrate a double check your own thoughts and comphreninos. It's just like your horrid quote mining of the past on some philosophical moral points or your prior terrible Brian Cox quote to think you had a well known scientist to say something yo agree with as if it meant anything... but it was also false you're quote was trying to make a point about life existing in the universe being not likely. Yet His actual quoted statement was a measure of him saying, there is no evidence of intelligent life in our solar system. To be truthful, other people across the internet took it in snipits that way too but did that have you give pause to check it up.. no, of course not.

Can you ever learn to have some integrity? If you believe yourself so rightly that you dont think thats not your comprehension being deplorable. Read that again, and you'll see the clear distinction is GEORGE DID X... not BOB nothing that has anything to do with, the rules not applying the same to bob and george.. You're just off in your own world because that's not in anyway the point. To the point I already talked about last time that you say I'm ignoring. I'm not ignoring the absolute claim... waiting for a philosophical reasoning to why you think its a difference in there. Learn how to make an argument more than merely an assertion and it will be acknowledged.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

We will compile a list of the atrocities in the bible, like the Amalekite virgins and selling your daughter to her rapist.

We'll say the latest KJV, unless you have a preference. We will include the quoted passages, all the appropriate information etc.

After every quotation, we will add a line reading: "I consider this action to be moral and good".

Then you sign it with your legal name.

Then we publish this document online and offer it to the major newspapers in your town for publication.

If you believe that the actions in the bible were not evil, then you should not have a problem with people knowing that you feel that way.

I have no problem telling people who asked whether I think the actions endorsed by the character of God in the bible, regardless if these stories are true or not, that I don't find those actions evil.

I doubt any major newspaper in my area would care to publish such a statement from me, though there might be some squeamish liberals, such as yourself that are offended by such statements. As to why I'm suppose to agree to disclose my personal information to you, the purpose of your suggestion, I don't know. Perhaps for the sake of some public shaming, by liberal minded-humanist and their kin?

At this point it's become clear that you have no argument, no reasonable case to make as to why I'm wrong, at best all you're left with, is telling me that you're personally uncomfortable, offended by my subjective moral views. Which coming from an individual such as yourself, means very little to me.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(15-06-2016 08:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No, you can't. You have to redefine what is "good" and "evil" so that what means "good" for god and what means "good" for any other conscious entity are different.

No, I don't.

I just have to a different subjective concept of what Good means, than you.

Which if you're a liberal minded humanist, we likely do.

Would you define Evil as good?

Not as having a purpose or being meaningful. But... Good itself?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-06-2016 08:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Like I said, you redefine what "good" means so that the evil shit your god does is still "good." And you STILL don't see the logical contradiction in redefining a word/concept to preserve the "goodness" of your god.

If your a liberal minded humanist, you have a particular subjective definition and standard of what Good means.

If you're not a liberal minded humanist you have different subjective definition and standard. Perhaps one standard of good, is built of a consequentialist moral outlook, based on actions, while another moral outlook is based on perceived intentions and not the act.

No one has redefined the meaning of Good, because there is no single definition of Good to be redefined. We just have differing definitions of Good. Which should be obvious to anyone who believes that morality is subjective.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(15-06-2016 08:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Like I said, you redefine what "good" means so that the evil shit your god does is still "good." And you STILL don't see the logical contradiction in redefining a word/concept to preserve the "goodness" of your god.

If your a liberal minded humanist, you have a particular subjective definition and standard of what Good means.

If you're not a liberal minded humanist you have different subjective definition and standard. Perhaps one standard of good, is built of a consequentialist moral outlook, based on actions, while another moral outlook is based on perceived intentions and not the act.

No one has redefined the meaning of Good, because there is no single definition of Good to be redefined. We just have differing definitions of Good. Which should be obvious to anyone who believes that morality is subjective.

Word salad and straight-up bullshit.

"No one has redefined the meaning of Good, because there is no single definition of Good to be redefined. We just have differing definitions of Good. "

You STILL fail to see the flaw you make.

YOU apply one meaning of "good" to yourself and humans and ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERSION OF "GOOD" to your god.

This isn't a matter of my subjective views, it is a matter of your logical inconsistencies.

Unless you only define god as good (which is redefining the word) and literally no other conscious entity can be good by definition, YOU are redefining words and the selectively applying them to fit your preconceived biases.

Ergo, your god is only "good" because you define it as good, not because it meets any criteria to actually be good. Which means it isn't good, you're just saying it's good.

I can define what someone else deems to be evil, as good. Just like I can define what someone else deems to be good music, as terrible music.

I can't define what I define as evil, to be good.

This is where you get whacky and alter the statements of questions and ideas talked on. It's why I capitalized Evil.. to be on the point of it.

EVIL, EEEEEVVIIIIIL.

itself.. is a concept. The concept EVIL.

Whether or not someone thinks something is bad/evil or not evil isn't the notion of Evil itself. That would be a totally different phrase and argument and statement. For you to then turn up your pet point of the subjectivity of not being able to say what is what to who is actually skirting away from the actual queries. Yes YOU find it interesting because you find it specific but that's fine. I don't particularly find this evil point interesting but its your notions of "perfect" or "good" that are open.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-06-2016 08:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote: I doubt any major newspaper in my area would care to publish such a statement from me, though there might be some squeamish liberals, such as yourself that are offended by such statements. As to why I'm suppose to agree to disclose my personal information to you, the purpose of your suggestion, I don't know. Perhaps for the sake of some public shaming, by liberal minded-humanist and their kin?

Don't be an ass. The point is that our society views all of those actions as morally wrong. By publicly approving such actions, by condoning those crimes, you would have to defend your beliefs.
I think we can all guess how well that would work.

And the only reason I would care where you live is to ensure that I do not live near you.

(15-06-2016 08:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote: At this point it's become clear that you have no argument, no reasonable case to make as to why I'm wrong, at best all you're left with, is telling me that you're personally uncomfortable, offended by my subjective moral views. Which coming from an individual such as yourself, means very little to me.

I have already stated, quite clearly and on multiple occasions, that I do not believe in objective morality. This leaves subjective morality by default.

The funny thing about subjective morality is that you have to justify it. You can't sit back and say "god said it's wrong so it's wrong."

Taking one example:

Tribe A moves into Tribe B's land.
Tribe A slaughters most of Tribe B.
The survivors are raped and enslaved.
Tribe A absorbs Tribe B's territory and possessions and even the survivors.

According to Tribe A:
Their god gave them the land and ordered the destruction of Tribe B.
Their actions were good and just.

According to Tribe B:
They're dead or being raped. I think it's fairly safe to assume they disagreed.

According to Me:
Rape causes pain and suffering, both physical and mental.
Murder ends the life of the murdered and causes mental suffering for the victim's family.
Enslavement removes a person's autonomy and forces them to labor for another without compensation. This causes physical and mental suffering.
Tribe A cannot justify their actions with any excuse other than "god told us to."

Thus, according to my subjective morality, Tribe A is completely, 100% wrong. Their actions were unjustified and wrong. Due to the loss of life and the pain and suffering inflicted, I feel comfortable calling those actions evil.

You can disagree with me if you choose, but such an opinion "coming from an individual such as yourself, means very little to me."

ETA:

In my example above:

If Tribe A worships your god and their book is the bible, you judge their actions as good.

If Tribe A worships Ghore-Tongue the Spider God and their book is the The Glory of Ghore, then would their actions be right?

(15-06-2016 08:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: YOU apply one meaning of "good" to yourself and humans and ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERSION OF "GOOD" to your god.

And you know that how? Do you know how I define Good in regards to humans? Since you think I define it differently when it comes to God?

You'd have to know that, to suggest I'm inconsistent with my criteria, or my judgement. But you don't.

Quote:This isn't a matter of my subjective views, it is a matter of your logical inconsistencies.

Tell me what my criteria for Good is in regards to humans, and then point out how I'm inconsistent with this criteria when it comes to the God character of the bible. What was that again? You don't know this.

Quote:Unless you only define god as good (which is redefining the word) and literally no other conscious entity can be good by definition, YOU are redefining words and the selectively applying them to fit your preconceived biases.

Actually I think it's more a matter of you projecting your own liberal humanistic moral views on to me.

Quote:Ergo, your god is only "good" because you define it as good, not because it meets any criteria to actually be good. Which means it isn't good, you're just saying it's good.

I'm not sure what it means for something to be actually good, when as you and others here claim what's Good is matter of subjective opinion. You just seem to want to label your subjective idea of Good, as actually Good, and other subjective ideas of Good, as not actually Good.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."